U.N. Debate: Should Abortion Be Included in "The World We Want Beyond 2015?"

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Great debate is taking place at the United Nations over inclusion of "reproductive rights"--interpreted to include access to abortion--in the new
set of priorities for the world which is set to take effect on January
1, 2016 after the current eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
expire in 2015. The process is moving forward as the Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals completed its work with an outcome documentthat includes access to "reproductive rights".

The OWG leads the inter-governmental process of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to devise new sustainable development goals as mandated in the "The World We Want" outcome documentfrom the 2012 UN
Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio de Janeiro.
Regrettably, the co-chairs Macharia Kamau, Permanent Representative of
Kenya, and Csaba Kőrösi, Permanent Representative of Hungary, allowed
highly contentious and controversial language on "reproductive rights"
to remain in the final outcome document which includes 17 goals and 169
targets.

Great debate
occurred over inclusion of "sexual and reproductive health" and
"reproductive rights" in Goal 5; a separate informal negotiating group
was formed by the co-chairs but it failed to reach consensus. Much of
the debate occurred during informal negotiations; countries opposed use
of "reproductive rights" believing that it refers to access to abortion
and conflicts with their national pro-life laws. The controversial
target remained in the text:

Target
5.6, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and
reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of
Action of the ICPD and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome
documents of their review conferences.

Lobby efforts
promoting not only "reproductive rights" but "sexual and reproductive
health and rights (SRHR)" were intense throughout the negotiations,
especially in the final days and hours. Countries remained divided as
developed countries pushed for insertion of SRHR and in the case of the
United States sought to remove reference to the Programme of Action of
the ICPD which acknowledges the sovereignty of national laws on
abortion. Countries from Africa, the Caribbean, and the Mid-East opposed
any inclusion of SRHR and many objected to target 5.6 on "reproductive
rights".

The inclusion of
"outcome documents of their review conferences" in this target was a
late revision to the report resulting in loud objection from many States
who are keenly aware of the radical content of various outcome
documents from ICPD and Beijing Platform for Action review conferences.
Countries strongly protested the failure to achieve consensus,
considered critical to the work of the United Nations, in closing
statements.

The 13th session
of the OWG was brought to a close with twenty countries still waiting to
speak when Co-chair Kamau-- realizing that the OWG had failed to
achieve consensus and unwilling to keep working on the controversial
areas following marathon negotiations-- called for approval of the final
report by "acclamation" resulting in applause by some states. Countries
that had expressed reservations or made inquiries of the chairs felt
ignored as their questions and concerns were left unanswered and the
co-chairs made a speedy exit.

According to "The
Future We Want", paragraph 248, the OWG report will be submitted to the
68th session of the UNGA for "appropriate action" and will be reflected
as part of the full range of inputs in the synthesis report that UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will be writing and presenting on the SDGs
in November.

Delegates hope, and expect,
that negotiations will continue during the General Assembly meeting in
September having concerns that the targets ignore the mandate in "The
World We Want", paragraph 247, that states the goals and targets must be
"universally applicable to all countries, while
taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels
of development and respecting national policies and priorities".

The promotion of
"reproductive rights" fails to take into account different national
policies on abortion and is not universally applicable. Many countries
value the lives of children in the womb and seek to make abortion rare.
Only 4 countries allow unrestricted access to abortion throughout
pregnancy-- the U. S., China, North Korea and Canada-- 58 countries
allow broad access to abortion on demand while the remaining countries
ban abortion completely, allow abortion only for a life of the mother
exception, or restrict access to abortion according to various
policies.

Inclusion of a
target on access to "reproductive rights" requires the creation of
indicators, another major concern. An indicator on access to
"reproductive rights" that follows the language of the ICPD would have
to ensure that where abortion is legal, it is "safe", (for the mother).
97% of countries allow abortion for at least one exception. How will
the "safety" of abortion access be measured in these countries? The World Health Organization's 2012 document, Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems, Second edition,
lists indicators for "safe abortion"; similar indicators can be
expected in the SDGs for any legal exception to abortion. Included are:

Number of facilities offering safe abortion services per 500,000 population

Percentage of health-care providers trained to provide safe abortion services to the full extent of the law

Percentage of population with correct knowledge of the legal status of abortion

Percentage of service-delivery points that use
WHO-recommended methods for induced abortion [This includes use of the
abortion-inducing drug Misoprostol which is often used to circumvent
laws against abortion.]

PNCI notes that
the process to shape "The World We Want Post 2015" will continue until
September 2015 when the new sustainable development goals are expected
to receive final adoption. The debate over "reproductive rights" will
continue as well.

Pro-abortion
activists are prepared to fully engage in the post 2015 process to
advance international access to abortion. Are we ready to defend the
right to life of the most defenseless and ensure that "The World We Want
Post 2015" includes all children and not just the perfect, the
privileged and the planned?